Monday, February 10, 2014

World Championship of Test Cricket

For long there has been talk about the need for
an interesting world championship of Test cricket. Obviously, the rolling mace
for the no. 1 Test team in the world has not been exciting enough. A world Test
tournament was proposed by the International Cricket Council (ICC), and
thankfully shelved in its recent meeting

As far back as 1912, a triangular Test
tournament was played between hosts England. Australia and South Africa, and it
was not a success. In the late 1990s a misconceived Asian Test championship was
conducted, and once again added no value. It is established that a tournament
for Test cricket is not a workable proposition, yet administrators come up with
fanciful ideas time and again.

I first put forth my arguments in my debut book
‘Test Cricket: End of the Road?’ as far back as 1990, proposing a four-year
World Championship of Test cricket, to be played between one One-day ICC World
Cup and the next. For long I have felt that this is the way forward for Test
cricket. If points are totalled over a four-year period and a champion team
emerges after dividing these points by the number of Test matches and series
played by each side, it would make for a very exciting championship.

Ideally, every Test-playing nation should play
against every other, home and away, in a two to five-Test series every four
years. If this is not always possible, it should be as close to this principle
as far as can be. There is, though, no reason why it cannot happen if the ICC
and the respective Boards make an effort.

The points system should place a premium on
wins, quick scoring and good bowling strike-rates. Hence there should be 10
points for each Test win, and no point for a draw, except in the event of a
Test match ending without a result due to interference by the weather, in which
case both teams should be awarded 5 points each.

This system should also be so devised as not to
encourage teams to bat on and on, particularly in the first innings and take
too much advantage of a flat wicket, nor also in the second innings in an over-cautious
attempt to avoid defeat. Batting and bowling points should, hence, be awarded
only up to the first 135 overs - translating to a-day-and-a-half - in each of
the first innings, and 90 overs in each of the second innings.

In the first innings, each team should be
awarded one point for scoring 270 runs, two points for scoring 340 runs, three
points for scoring 405 runs, and four points for scoring 475 runs in the first
135 overs of their respective turns. This would mean that they would get one
point for scoring at a rate of at least 2 runs an over, two points for scoring
at a rate of at least 2.5 runs an over, three points for scoring at a rate of
at least 3 runs an over, and four points for scoring at a rate of at least 3.5
runs an over.

In the second innings, each team should be
awarded one point for scoring 180 runs, two points for scoring 205 runs, three
points for scoring 225 runs, and four points for scoring 250 runs in their
respective first 90 overs. They would, therefore, get one point for scoring at
least 2 runs an over, two points for scoring at least 2.25 runs an over, three
points for scoring at least 2.5 runs an over, and four points for scoring at
least 2.75 runs an over.

For bowling, in either innings, one point should
be awarded to both sides for taking 7 wickets, two points for taking 8 wickets,
three points for taking 9 wickets, and four points for taking 10 wickets in the
first 135 overs and 90 overs respectively.

In the event of innings wins, four points should
be awarded for the second innings in which the team did not bat. In case of
wins by wickets, batting points should be awarded for scoring at the rates
mentioned above in case 90 overs have not been completed. Similarly, in case of
second-innings declaration leading to wins by runs, batting points should be
awarded for scoring at the prescribed rates.

Such a system would make for positive cricket,
and also provide an incentive to quicken the over-rate, as it would be in the
interests of both teams to strive for runs and wickets, and for victories.

For winning a series 20 points should be
awarded. At the end of the four-year period, the total match points should be
divided by the Tests, and the series points divided by the series played by
each team, and added up. Not only would a champion team emerge, but periodic
rankings would also be known.

I would strongly urge the ICC to look seriously
at such a system, fine-tune it and implement it immediately after its One-day
World Cup 2015. Even rankings of players could be worked out over such a
four-year period. It is time Test cricket got a World Championship of this
nature.

(Indra Vikram Singh is author of several books on cricket and can be contacted on email singh_iv@hotmail.com).

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Scion of the princely house of Rajpipla, now in the province of Gujarat, India, and descendant of the ancient Gohil Rajput dynasty, Indra Vikram Singh is a sportsman, entrepreneur, writer, author, editor and publisher. He is author of 'Test Cricket - End of the Road?' (1992), 'World Cup Cricket' (2002), 'The Little Big Book of World Cup Cricket' (2007 and 2011 editions), 'The Big Book of World Cup Cricket' (2011), 'A Maharaja's Turf' (2011) on the triumph of his grandfather Maharaja Sir Vijaysinhji of Rajpipla in the Epsom Derby of England in 1934, 'Don's Century' (2011) which is a biography of Don Bradman and a panorama of batting from the 1860s to the present times, and 'Crowning Glory' (2011) and 'Indian Spring' (2015), both on India's triumph in the ICC World Cup 2011. A talented allround cricketer, he captained teams of both his school and college. He was the moving force behind the setting up of sports complexes in Delhi in the latter part of the 1980s and early 1990s, and is now setting up a heritage resort.